Quote: (10-21-2011 11:08 AM)Moma Wrote:
Quote: (10-21-2011 04:18 AM)K-man Wrote:
Quote: (10-20-2011 03:52 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:
If I cannot afford any regular, decent amount of support like this, then I won't have the kids.
Obviously a lot of people in the ghetto don't think like that.
Also, all these dads in Bangladesh and Pakistan and Ethiopia that father 7-8 kids you see starving on the UNICEF cards don't think like that, either.
So they are outbreeding you (and me).
People in the ghetto don't think..PERIOD. It's just about survival. Live for now mentality.
In other countries such as the aforementioned, children are like an investment. You need someone to help with the family business, the farm. Often some will not make it, so if you have 7-8, you will be ensured at least 4.
It's the same as lizards. If you swoop 15 lizards, surely you will get at least 3-4 bangs from them..'tis a numbers game.
Exactly.
In the ghetto, thinking ahead is really not done often, as Moma indicated.
In third world countries, children are a matter of expedience. There is no social security or welfare system in many of these nations, and the local economies often rely on low yield, but highly labor intensive work (ex: subsistence agriculture, the norm in most of Ethiopia, Niger, etc-the nations with the high birth rates). Thus, you need a lot of hands. Children are very valuable there.
The western world was the same exact way prior to the early 20th century, which is why high birth rates were so common here back then (ex: it wasn't unusual to see an 8-9 person Irish family in early 20th century New York or early 19th century New England/Pennsylvania).
During the early 20th century, a few things changed.
-Child mortality rates declined
-Our economy became more knowledge intensive, requiring more education for participation. Labor intensive activities (subsistence agriculture, cheap factory/textile work) became less common, which meant that the earning potential for each child declined. Hence, less incentive to have so many kids(they were now more expensive and less profitable).
-Government became more responsible, providing more welfare (ex: social security). Kids weren't as crucial for this anymore now that the state could do it.
-Life expectancy increase. This combined with lower child mortality to give women more to do. Before this, they had to spend most of their lives barefoot and pregnant because a) child mortality was high, so they needed to have lots of kids, b) kids were the main source of wealth, also requiring lots of kids, c) life expectancy was low(to survive to 40 was to reach "elderly" status back in the day), so to get all those kids, she needed to start trying young.
Now women could have fewer kids and live much longer. They could devote lower portions of their lives to raising kids, and more to other things.
This is the root of feminism.
The reason why third world countries are in such a different place as compared to the West stems from the fact that all of these developments haven't taken place, or haven't quite taken place to the same extent. There, children are still a necessity and a blessing. In the west, they're a massive financial burden.
Its the ironic catch-22 of civilization: More development = less incentive to reproduce, followed by less desire among population to reproduce, eventual population decline and then (one would have to conclude given the failure of the population that developed said society to reproduce) the eventual decline of said society, whereby it fades into obscurity or is overwhelmed by another.
Less development = more incentive to reproduce, population increase, and expansion of said people's culture/society.
The more we succeed, the less likely we are to persist.
Once a human society reaches a certain level of wealth, it seems to lose its desire to propagate itself. They quit trying to reproduce and eventually just decline. This happened in Babylon, Sparta, Athens, Rome, and now it seems the modern West may follow suit.
Bottomline: For low birth rates, feminism and other typical western developments to take root in a given society, you need standards of living to rise up to the level you see in Western Europe and the Anglosphere. They stand no chance without that type of development.
![[Image: dodgy.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/dodgy.gif)
